The question of why Ethereum cannot simply “Rollback” His blockchain to reverse the massive piracy of $ 1.4 billion, which occurred on February 21, 2025, depends on a mixture of technical, philosophical and practical factors linked to the design and the Ethereum ecosystem. The hack, attributed to Lazare group in North KoreaSaw Hackers operates a compromised multisig portfolio interface to siphon 401,000 and other tokens, inviting some, such as Bitmex co-founder Arthur HayesTo suggest a decline. However, the developers of Ethereum and the larger community have suppressed this idea as unrealizable and undesirable.
Ethereum’s architecture makes a traditional “decline” – considering blockchain in a pre -hack – extremely difficult state. Contrary to Bitcoin utxo (Unexpected transaction exit) System, Ethereum uses an account model where the sales are stored as bank accounts. A step back is not a simple rewinding of the transactions; Rewriting accounts are needed throughout the network. THE DAO 2016 Hacking, often quoted as a precedent, was not a decline either – it was a “Transition from the irregular state” This moved the funds to a reimbursement contract via a hard fork, not a reversal of the chain itself. In the case of Bybit, the hack exploited a misleading multisig interface, not a fault in the Ethereum protocol.
The transactions appeared legitimate for the network, following all the rules of consensus. Ethereum Core Developer Tim Beiko Noted that, unlike the DAO feat which targeted an intelligent contract bug with a gel of 30 days on the funds, the appeal funds were immediately mobile, leaving no technical hook for the intervention. Since 2016, Ethereum has become much more complex with decentralized finances, layer 2 rollers, transverse bridges and active world tokenized. The inversion of the chain would not only cancel hacking, but all legitimate transactions since February 21 – dissuade the professions, regulations and out -of -chain agreements. Beiko has described this as causing “quasi-retractable undulation effects”, potentially breaking the stablecoins, bridges and L2.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 17 (June 9 – September 6, 2025)) Today for early reductions. An annual for access to Blurara.com.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
Immutability as a basic principle
The community and the developers of Ethereum prioritize immutability – the idea that once the transactions are confirmed, they are final: a decline would undermine Ethereum’s credibility as a decentralized and without confidence system. If the transactions can be reversed at will, it erodes the promise of the resistance and purpose blockchain of censorship. Critics like the educator Anthony Sassano support: “This is not how it works”, stressing that even the Dao fork was a unique exception, not a standard. Post-Dao, Ethereum has avoided the declines for major hacks (for example, Ronin, Poly network), strengthening immutability. The 2016 fork divided the chain into Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (etc.), with etc. Preserving the large original and unchanged book. Another split today would fragment an already complex ecosystem, probably alienating users and developers.
Even if technically possible, the execution of a rollback faces insurmountable obstacles. A decline requires a large agreement between Ethereum validators, node operators and the community. In 2016, the Dao Fork had a significant support due to the hack scale (15% ETH) and a clear recovery path. Bybit’s hacking, although large ($ 1.4 billion), has no freezing or isolation of similar funds, and community consensus is firmly against intervention, as shown in posts and developers’ declarations. The pirates quickly moved the stolen ethn through decentralized exchanges and divided it on 54 wallets (for example, 489,395 ETH and 15,000 Mantle RESTTAKED ETH).
CEO of Bybit Ben Zhou Noted efforts to follow them via a bonus of 140 million dollars and police, but a decline cannot cancel the money laundering which has already occurred without also invaliding unrelated transactions. Unlike the 30 -day DAO window, appealing was instantaneous. Bitcoin Advocate Jimmy song underlined that the DAO was delayed, while the attack by Bybit was “already finalized”, making a own reversal “too much mess”. The defeat of the days of transactions would strike innocent users, the protocols DEFI and the transversal systems, potentially costing more than the hack itself.
A decline could point out that Ethereum is centralized, subject to human whims – Maximalist Bitcoin criticisms supplying (for example, publications on the “centralization” of ETH mocking ETH). This can lead users to alternatives such as Ethereum Classic or Rival Chains. With affirmations, the funds could help the nuclear program of North Korea, a rollback could invite a meticulous examination, but the inaction aligns with the neutrality of Ethereum, leaving recovery to exchanges and the police.
Why it won’t happen
The developers of Ethereum, like Beiko, call a rollback “Technically intractable” and “disruptor”. The community considers him as a betrayal of decentralization – unlike 2016, when Ethereum was younger and less tangled. Zhou de Bybit took a neutral position, suggesting a community vote, but the feeling (for example, “It is not AF *** Ing Walmart”) shows Rollback’s conversation as a non-starter. Instead, Focus has moved to safety improvements and the monitoring of pirates, with the appeal of its ETH gap via loans and partnerships. Ethereum cannot restore the hacking of Bybit because its conception, its principles and its current complexity prohibit it – and the community will not allow it. Dao was an anomaly; Today’s Ethereum chooses immutability rather than intervention, even at a cost of $ 1.4 billion.
